Given that the "typical" WW-II Single engine fighter could be spotted at 1-2 miles, depending on aspect, about half the time, I propose that the smaller the plane, the more effective it will be! Sort of a semi-stealth solution to the "Spotting" problem?

Let me point out some lessons, if somebody had carried this out in PEACETIME in a simulation.

1. A pair of P&W R-2800s is better than four Wright R-1820s if you are going to design a B-17 dive/glide bomber. That wing flex caused by four engines is a killer . The fewer stress load points and interruptions on the wing spar, the stiffer and the stronger you can make the wing. Two engines means less drag and a more stable dive or glide bomb profile for the plane.

2. Move the wing up to the top of the fuselage, change the length to width area ratio. And lengthen that bomb-bay. Then design long skinny 4000 lb CLUSTER bombs and learn to use night tactics for precision bombing. (Come in low, fast, and at about 7000-15,000, where the heavy flak guns can't track and the light flak guns cant reach. Use LORAN blind bombing and do a radio marker survey of enemy territory (recon flights) so that you can bomb off a signal.

Not that the planes were designed with ship-killing or STRATEGIC bombing in mind, but you get the point.

Unfortunately... by the time the Japanese got the point,... it was too late to fix the A-26 and B-26 properly (post-war fixes) or to design the right kind of bombs for the US medium bomber force. B-25s, A-20s, and short 500 pounders had to do for the inability to drop torpedoes to kill ships. And four engine bozo bombers had to terror bomb in daylight to serve as fighter bait.

TRAINING and tactics overcame tech deficiencies.

PROFESSIONAL air force.

Note the plan-form of the planes that Martin and DOUGLAS built? Long bomb-bays and high mounted wings? Martin and Douglas had built their mistakes and learned from them, (B-10 for Martin, B-18 Bolo for Douglas.)

But then I said all THAT previously.

By the way, the Germans designed and built a twin-engined B-17.... A little short on the range requirement.

What did I conclude? Based on large drift left and drift right errors, but the small CONSISTENT over and short errors reported, the problem was the BOMBER, and not the bomb. The plane was not aligned UPWIND properly. SIDE SHOVE forces of unknown cause produced lateral displacement.

I discount the propaganda.

You claimed that the Lanc-tallboy was the cats meow. Yet that combo was amost as good as the same number of B-17s bombing the same size target from half again as high?

what rubbish, the US drastically reduced bombing heights as they found that they hit nothing, a B17 20000ft+ and the accuracy of US bombing is nothing like what you are implying B17 (which was designed and built as a antiship weapon BTW) had a record of never hitting a ship, US attacks on German Capital ships resulted in NO hits, US attacks on Japanese ships by B17 resulted in NO hits

so where do you get that the B17 was as good? in your dream world as usual

5. When POINTBLANK was laid on few people realize just how much of that was carried out by the US MEDIUM bomber force. True most of the twin engine mediums were too short ranged to hit eastern Germany, but they were adequate for France. In addition, something else has always puzzled air-warfare historians. WHY didn't the USAAF start independent fighter sweep operations into Germany earlier than MID 1944-1945? That was the point of the P-38 deployment to Europe! True the plane wasn't able to reach Berlin, but it could reach the Ruhr. It could fight day or NIGHT. It would have helped to apply pressure on the German fighter force when both the British and Americans NEEDED that pressure.

300+ plane strong or so sustained intruder sweeps DAILY. How long could a Luftwaffe day-fighter force that numbered less than 400 active aircraft scattered across west Germany last? If you want to kill enemy fighter pilots...

It is what PACAF started to do to Japan once their P-51s were in range of Japan.

Bloody as hell and costly too, but a LOT less costly than 80,000 USAAF and RAF casualties suffered by the bomber crews over Germany. (That's DEAD mind you.)

1. A pair of P&W R-2800s is better than four Wright R-1820s if you are going to design a B-17 dive/glide bomber. That wing flex caused by four engines is a killer . The fewer stress load points and interruptions on the wing spar, the stiffer and the stronger you can make the wing. Two engines means less drag and a more stable dive or glide bomb profile for the plane. The idea that concentrating the engine mas closer to the CL will make the wing stronger as opposed to distributing the mas along the span seems strange to me.

2. Move the wing up to the top of the fuselage, change the length to width area ratio. Like a B-24? And lengthen that bomb-bay. Like a B-24?

TRAINING and tactics overcame tech deficiencies. True on all sides!

PROFESSIONAL air force. True on all sides!

A couple of side notes...

4. Tallboy tests.......Note that none of those bombs in that, or any of the other films at that web site missed by as large a margin, or as many timsa as those bombs dropped from Lancs Vs Tirpitz!

What did I conclude? Based on large drift left and drift right errors, but the small CONSISTENT over and short errors reported, the problem was the BOMBER, and not the bomb. True on all sides! But, how do you explain the even larger scatter and in ALL directions ob Tallboys dropped by Lancs Vs Tirpitz? but The plane was not aligned UPWIND properly. SIDE SHOVE forces of unknown cause produced lateral displacement. So, even with the planes aligned up wind? they still missed by errors five times as large in at least one case.

I discount the propaganda. From the RAF? Not me, I take them at their word, mostly.

Steamlined, Semi-AP? Or possibly Medium Case GP?I honestly do not know the realivant deffinition in relation ot modern bombs. most of which have very little relation to the TB and GS. Bombs that large are a rule unto themselves? Note that there are both larger and more effective bombs out there. Both higher Charge/Case ratio and much deeper penitration designs, but not both in one type.

Tallboy and grand slam were designed with an extra thick armoured nose to penetrate the target before exploding.

In modern parlance, the were bunker busters.

As an aside, Walliss's original design was for ten ton bomb but the powers to be thought that was too heavy for a Lancaster to carry. The tall boy was a safer option. They knew a Lancaster could carry one of those.

All that you could want to know about a bomb that was supposed to penetrate up to thirty three feet (ten meters) of reinforced concrete to kill the U-boat underneath it. Worked on battleships too.

A variant that could slam into the ground under a factory and explode, creating a surface shock wave through the building's reinforced foundation would have helped to wreck the assembly line in it . Oh WAIT! the British made those too.